Americans United - First Thingshttps://www.au.org/tags/first-things
enRetaining The Towel: The Religious Right Hasn’t Given Up On Same-Sex Marriage Just Yethttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/retaining-the-towel-the-religious-right-hasn-t-given-up-on-same-sex
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The battlefield here is a political map, so the outcome of the same-sex marriage debate will depend on how much ballot box muscle the Religious Right can muster.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Is the Religious Right ready to give up on same-sex marriage? At least one observer thinks so.</p><p>Damon Linker, <a href="http://theweek.com/article/index/272387/its-official-the-religious-right-is-calling-it-quits">writing in <em>This Week</em></a>, cites <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/a-time-to-rend">a short article</a> that appeared in the conservative journal <em>First Things</em> recently as evidence of some kind of turning point in how theocratic groups deal with same-sex marriage.</p><p>The article in question, by R.R. Reno, the editor of <em>First Things</em>, is titled “A Time To Rend.” It cites a pastors’ pledge circulating on the theocratic fringe that urges clergy to stop performing civil marriages.</p><p>Reno writes that the pledge “requires ordained ministers to renounce their long-established role as agents of the state with the legal power to sign marriage certificates.”</p><p>The thinking here is that because the government has debased marriage by extending it to same-sex couples, churches should just bow out.</p><p>The pledge reads in part, “The new definition of marriage no longer coincides with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and woman. Our biblical faith is committed to upholding, celebrating, and furthering this understanding, which is stated many times within the Scriptures and has been repeatedly restated in our wedding ceremonies, church laws, and doctrinal standards for centuries. To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage. Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage.”</p><p>Linker sees this as an important moment. He speculates, “In some ways, this sounds like a return to the early decades of the 20th century, when fundamentalist Protestants lost an earlier round in the culture war with theological modernists, and responded by withdrawing almost entirely into the shadows, which is where they remained until the late 1970s.”</p><p>I’m not so sure. For starters, <em>First Things</em> (where Linker used to work until he broke with the magazine’s leadership over politics) represents the Religious Right’s attempt at forging an intellectual wing. Founded by the late Richard John Neuhaus, a Lutheran pastor turned Catholic priest, it has always been dense and theoretical in its approach. This is not a publication for the foot soldiers of the Religious Right.</p><p>The people who write for <em>First Things</em> won’t determine the outcome of this fight. The battlefield here is a political map, so the outcome will depend on how much ballot box muscle the Religious Right can muster. Linker asserts that “The religious right arguably has less power within the Republican Party than at any time since before Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign for president” – an argument I believe is hard to sustain in light of the recent election results.</p><p>Federals appeals courts are currently split over whether states must extend marriage to same-sex couples. Normally, the Supreme Court would step in and issue a definitive ruling – but the justices are not required to do that.</p><p>So consider this “perfect storm” scenario: The Supreme Court continues dodging the issue of marriage equality. A president who opposes same-sex marriage is elected in 2016. A member of the Supreme Court’s liberal faction is forced to retire due to health issues, and a conservative in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito is appointed to the open seat.</p><p>The high court would have a five-member bloc opposed to marriage equality. They would likely rule that states are free to ban same-sex marriage if they want to.</p><p>A ruling like that would certainly spawn a lot of confusion in some states. Thousands of same-sex couples have been legally married in recent years. They have qualified for all the benefits that opposite-sex couples have taken for granted for years. They are parents or legal guardians of children. What would happen to these marriages? Would they be nullified or grandfathered in?</p><p>Some have argued that we can’t turn back now because all these marriages and family arrangements would be thrown into chaos if the high court gave the states the right to ban same-sex marriage by popular vote.</p><p>Indeed, it would be a cruel thing to do. But no one should assume that a right-wing Supreme Court would hesitate to do it. At times, it seems as if Scalia et al. positively thrive on chaos.</p><p>Linker is the author of a well-regarded book on the Religious Right called <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Theocons-Damon-Linker-ebook/dp/B000VSW7S4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1416849127&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=theocons">Theocons</a></em>. I have always been impressed by his erudition. But in this case, I think he has overblown the possible impact of a brief article in a relatively obscure right-wing journal.</p><p>I don’t expect many pastors to take the pledge <em>First Things</em> so happily endorses. That’s not what the Family Research Council, the American Family Association or the U.S. Catholic bishops, for that matter, want. They want a political solution to the “problem” of same-sex marriage. And depending on how things shake out at the ballot box two years from now, they just might get it.</p><p>Of course, I could be wrong. The cultural tide on this issue may be so strong that marriage equality is inevitable. In some states, that may be the case. But we’d be naïve to believe that if states like South Carolina, Utah and Montana are given the opportunity to ban same-sex marriage again that they won’t do it. They will. In a heartbeat.</p><p>Bottom line: Yes, there has been plenty of good news lately – including a startling <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/06/the_national_organization_for_marriage_is_doomed_to_collapse.html">drop in the budget</a> of the National Organization for Marriage. But this issue isn’t settled just yet. Stay tuned.</p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/marriage-including-same-sex-marriage">Marriage (including same-sex Marriage)</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/same-sex-marriage">same-sex marriage</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/damon-linker">Damon Linker</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/theocons">Theocons</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/first-things">First Things</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/rr-reno">R.R. Reno</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/this-week">This Week</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/antonin-scalia">Antonin Scalia</a></span></div></div>Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:46:42 +0000Rob Boston10694 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/retaining-the-towel-the-religious-right-hasn-t-given-up-on-same-sex#commentsExile Excitement: Some Fundamentalists Seek Escape From Decadent Societyhttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/exile-excitement-some-fundamentalists-seek-escape-from-decadent-society
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">The neo-Puritans just can’t take all the secularism, false religions and general gayness that’s rippling through American culture right now. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>OK, now we’ve done it. Those of us who advocate things like separation of church and state, secular government, LGBT rights and self-determination when it comes to issues of sexuality have really torqued off the Religious Right – so much so that some of them are thinking of going into exile.</p><p>Don’t get too excited. It’s not like they are going to flee <em>en masse</em> to some forgotten island or anything. Rather, some folks on the far, far right of the theological spectrum seem to be contemplating a type of “internal exile.” They’d hole up in a fundamentalist denomination until this current age of wickedness blows over.</p><p>David Gibson of Religion News Service <a href="http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/18/christian-conservatives-babylon/">described this phenomenon</a> recently. Gibson wrote that a strain of Religious Right activists is “feeling increasingly alienated and even persecuted in the society they once claimed as their own. They’re shifting to another favorite image from Scripture – that of the Babylonian exile, preparing, as the ancient Judeans did, to preserve their faith in a hostile world.”</p><p>Gibson quoted Carl Trueman, a professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Glenside, Pa. Picking up on the Religious Right’s increasingly popular persecution theme, Trueman carped, “We live in a time of exile. At least those of us do who hold to traditional Christian beliefs.” </p><p>Trueman made the comment in the journal <em>First Things</em>, an uber-Catholic publication that has long been the voice of those who pine for the 12th century and miss the days when no one dared question the local bishop lest they end up on a rack.</p><p>“[T]he Western public square,” Trueman bemoaned, “ is no longer a place where Christians feel they belong with any degree of comfort.”</p><p>Poor guy. Seems these neo-Puritans just can’t take all the secularism, false religions and general gayness that’s rippling through American culture right now. Worse yet, the Republicans, who were supposed to save us from all of this, seem more interested in slashing taxes and attacking the Affordable Care Act than ushering in the Second Coming.</p><p>No one appointed Trueman a spokesman for Christianity or even “traditional Christianity.” I know there are many good Christians who sharply disagree with him. But those in his camp are left with the question of what’s an upright (and uptight) fundamentalist to do these days?</p><p>I have a suggestion: Face a hard truth. It seems to me that you holier-than-thou types have been preachifying at us for a long time. It also seems to me that many of us have heard your message. (Believe me, we’ve heard it.)</p><p>Did it ever occur to you that maybe we are consciously rejecting it?</p><p>Perhaps we’re doing that because it’s not a very good message. All too often, it’s a message of division, a message of hate and a message of ignorance. It’s a message anchored in an intolerant past that we’re glad to have shed. We won’t go back. </p><p>I’d recommend that the fundamentalists preach a better message – but they don’t seem to have one. They can’t persuade us to voluntarily adopt their faith, and they’ve certainly tried to force us. But lately that hasn’t been working out too well for them, either.</p><p>What are their options? Well, the exile thing is certainly a possibility (although I find it amusing that the fundamentalists are already arguing among themselves about which right-wing religion is best to shelter them). But here’s another: Stop trying to run our lives. Mind your own business, and, for the most part, people will let you alone.</p><p>Bothered by gay sex? Don’t engage in it. Annoyed by books about evolution? Don’t read them. Discouraged because you don’t see enough evidence of your religion in public spots? Go to a place where you’re sure to find it – a church!</p><p>Gibson notes that these fundamentalists feel “alienated.” That could be, but they never seem to take the next step and ask why they’re feeling that way.</p><p>A little self-reflection is in order. The fundamentalists have no one but themselves to blame – because they peddle a crummy product. There’s a reason the period during which rigid religion ruled supreme is known as the “Dark Ages.” In more recent times in America and elsewhere, fundamentalist dominance spawned things like subjugation of women, censorship, anti-science views, coerced religious worship and suppression of other faiths.</p><p>The fundamentalists had their day, and they made a hash of it. So some people – I’m talking to you, Roger Williams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and John Leland – came up with a better option: religious and philosophical freedom for all backed by an officially secular government resting on a wall of separation between church and state.</p><p>Without apology, we can say that this way of doing things is demonstrably better. But there’s no reason for anyone to go into exile. Fundamentalists will always be free to go to church, proselytize (on their own time and with their own dime) and worship with like-minded believers as they see fit.</p><p>What they won’t be free to do is use the government to enforce a theology that most Americans have chosen not to adopt.</p><p>It’s a fair deal. But if it absolutely doesn’t please the Religious Right, I’m sure there’s still a forgotten island out there somewhere that can be fashioned into a theocratic utopia. Because those always work out so well, right? </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/first-things">First Things</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/carl-trueman">Carl Trueman</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/david-gibson">David Gibson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-madison">James Madison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roger-williams">Roger Williams</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/thomas-jefferson">thomas jefferson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-leland">John Leland</a></span></div></div>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:17:06 +0000Rob Boston10390 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/exile-excitement-some-fundamentalists-seek-escape-from-decadent-society#commentsThe Barton Lies: Conservative Christian Scholars Debunk ‘Christian Nation’ Propagandisthttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-barton-lies-conservative-christian-scholars-debunk-christian-nation
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Conservative Christian scholars are stepping up their criticism of &#039;Christian nation&#039; propagandist David Barton. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Is this the beginning of the end of David Barton’s influence?</p><p>I certainly hope so. The phony history being peddled by the “Christian nation” propagandist is under increasing fire from critics – and here’s the rub: They’re all conservative Christians.</p><p>As you might recall, Barton runs a Religious Right group called WallBuilders in Aledo, Texas. His central arguments are that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation, the Constitution is based on the Bible, most of the founders were evangelical Christians and church-state separation is a myth.</p><p>Barton is not a historian. He holds a degree in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University. I’ve been debunking his sloppy work since 1993. Other critics, such as Chris Rodda (author of <a href="http://www.liarsforjesus.com/"><em>Liars for Jesus</em></a>) have joined the fray.</p><p>But Chris and I represent the pro-separation-of-church-and-state community and are thus easily written off by Barton and his pals as “radical secularists.” The new flock of critics will not be so easy to dismiss.</p><p>Why are so many of these Christian critics speaking up now? I think it’s a simple case of Barton going too far. He recently penned a book about Thomas Jefferson titled <em>The Jefferson Lies</em>. In <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Lies-Exposing-Always-Believed/dp/1595554599/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1344518386&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=jefferson+lies">the tome</a>, Barton argues that for most of his life, Jefferson was an orthodox Christian who really didn’t support church-state separation.</p><p>Unlike Barton’s earlier books, <em>The Jefferson Lies</em> was not self-published. It even appeared briefly on <em>The New York Times</em> bestsellers list.</p><p>This proved to be too much for some of Barton’s Christian critics, and they fired back. Among the first out of the gate were Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter of Grove City College in Pennsylvania, who penned a thorough take down of Barton titled <em>Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President. </em>(You can <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Jefferson-Right-President-ebook/dp/B007ZUDUAU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1344518173&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=warren+throckmorton">buy it as an e-book</a> on Amazon for $4.99.)</p><p>Jon Fea, author of <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Was-America-Founded-Christian-Nation/dp/0664235042/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1344518598&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=john+fea">Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction</a>,</em> has also been highly critical of Barton’s work. Fea, associate professor of American History and chair of the History Department at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., can’t exactly be described as a raving secularist.</p><p><em>World</em> magazine has also <a href="http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/19820">called out</a> Barton. This really surprised me because it’s a pretty conservative publication that in the past has advocated for “biblical” government.</p><p><em>World</em> reported that Jay W. Richards, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute (a creationist organization AU has tangled with in the past), recently asked 10 conservative Christian professors to examine Barton’s work.</p><p>“Their response was negative,” observed <em>World</em>. “Some examples: Glenn Moots of Northwood University wrote that Barton in <em>The Jefferson Lies</em> is so eager to portray Jefferson as sympathetic to Christianity that he misses or omits obvious signs that Jefferson stood outside ‘orthodox, creedal, confessional Christianity.’ A second professor, Glenn Sunshine of Central Connecticut State University, said that Barton’s characterization of Jefferson’s religious views is ‘unsupportable.’ A third, Gregg Frazer of The Master’s College, evaluated Barton’s video <em>America’s Godly Heritage</em> and found many of its factual claims dubious, such as a statement that 52 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention were ‘orthodox, evangelical Christians.’”</p><p>Picking up on the <em>World</em> piece, <em>First Things</em>, a publication featuring conservative Catholic thought, <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/08/08/david-bartons-errors/">criticized Barton’s take on John Locke</a>. Blogger Greg Forster charged that Barton is guilty of “numerous distortions” and “a number of incidental factual errors” about Locke.</p><p>All of this may seem like inside baseball reaching a limited audience. But what happened yesterday was decidedly not. National Public Radio struck.</p><p><a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157754542/the-most-influential-evangelist-youve-never-heard-of">Yesterday’s segment</a> by religion correspondent Barbara Bradley Haggerty was simply devastating. Haggerty mostly lets Barton trip himself up through his own outlandish claims.</p><p>Two of my favorites: He argues that the Constitution is laced with biblical quotations and that Thomas Paine advocated teaching creationism in schools. (Paine died in 1809 – 50 years before Charles Darwin outlined the theory of evolution in <em>On The Origin of Species</em>.)</p><p>Haggerty also asked several of Barton’s critics to fact-check his claims. The results were posted online and can be seen <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157777697/cue-the-tape-how-david-barton-sees-the-world">here</a>. It’s not good news for Barton.</p><p>To be sure, many fundamentalists who idolize Barton will not care about any of this. And we all know that lots of folks have a deep ability to engage in self-delusion and believe what they find comforting, heedless of the facts. Witness the ongoing popularity of “creation science.”</p><p>But with the academic attacks on Barton mounting, his support is increasingly being relegated to radio ranters like Glenn Beck and political foghorns like Newt Gingrich. One can hope that Barton will be marginalized and eventually exiled to where he has always belonged: the wilderness of the lunatic fringe.</p><p>It may be a dream, but it’s one well worth having.</p><p><strong>Update:</strong> Thomas Nelson, the publisher of <em>The Jefferson Lies</em>, has just announced that it is pulling the book. More <a href="http://wthrockmorton.com/2012/08/09/thomas-nelson-pulls-david-bartons-the-jefferson-lies/">here</a>.</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/descriptions-and-activities-religious-right-groups">Descriptions and Activities of Religious Right Groups</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-fea">John Fea</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/warren-throckmorton">Warren Throckmorton</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/michael-coulter">Michael Coulter</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/david-barton">David Barton</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/wallbuilders">WallBuilders</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/first-things">First Things</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/world-magazine">World magazine</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/greg-forster">Greg Forster</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/barbara-bradley-haggerty">Barbara Bradley Haggerty</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/npr">NPR</a></span></div></div>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:10:55 +0000Rob Boston7433 at https://www.au.orghttps://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/the-barton-lies-conservative-christian-scholars-debunk-christian-nation#comments